JP7494476B2 - MATCHING SUPPORT SYSTEM, MATCHING SUPPORT DEVICE, RELIABILITY CALCULATION METHOD, AND RELIABILITY CALCULATION PROGRAM - Google Patents

Description

The present invention relates to a matching support system, a matching support device, a reliability calculation method, and a reliability calculation program for matching a requester seeking a service with a provider providing the service.

In recent years, support services have been put into operation that support mutual aid activities among registered users through a network. For example, ride sharing is known, which matches car drivers with people to share their cars, or matches people to each other to share a car.

Conventionally, in the above-mentioned ride sharing services, if there is a certain level of trust between users of the ride sharing service, for example, between the driver and the person requesting the ride, each user can receive the ride sharing service with peace of mind. However, if there is no trust between users, there is a problem in that each user cannot receive the service with peace of mind.

To address this issue, a reliability calculation device has been disclosed that calculates a user's reliability with respect to other users based on address information previously obtained from the user who has been registered in advance, and when a matching request is made, presents matching candidates selected from other users based on the reliability corresponding to the requesting user (see Patent Document 1).

JP 2014-215670 A

The above-mentioned conventional trust calculation device generates a user map using address information (such as telephone numbers and email addresses) registered in communication terminal devices such as smartphones used by users, and calculates the trust between users based on the paths between users on the map. However, since the address information registered in the communication terminal device is not necessarily the address information of other users who are highly trustworthy to the user, a high trust value may be calculated even between users whose actual trust relationship is extremely low, resulting in a problem that the calculated result is significantly different from the actual trust relationship. In addition, if disclosure of address information is not permitted in the communication terminal device, the trust calculation device cannot obtain the address information and cannot calculate the trust.

The above-mentioned problem regarding reliability is not limited to ride sharing, but can occur in all matching services that help match requesters of services with service providers.

The object of the present invention is to provide a matching support system, a matching support device, a reliability calculation method, and a reliability calculation program that can reliably calculate the reliability of provider candidates that meet the matching requirements of a requester, and further, can calculate a reliability with high credibility.

(1) A matching support system according to one aspect of the present invention is a system that supports matching between a requester seeking the provision of a service and a provider providing the service. The matching support system includes a reliability calculation processing unit. The reliability calculation processing unit calculates the reliability of the provider in the client's opinion based on a first provider evaluation value of the provider evaluated based on the service implementation track record of the provider and a second provider evaluation value of the provider evaluated based on the relationship between the client and the provider.

Because of this configuration, the reliability calculation processing unit can reliably calculate a highly credible reliability. As a result, the requester can use the matching support system with peace of mind, and since the requester can select a provider based on the reliability, the requester can receive services from the provider with peace of mind.

The first provider evaluation value includes, for example, an evaluation value based on at least one of the period of non-performance since the last performance by the provider and the performance evaluation from the client who received the service. The second provider evaluation value includes an evaluation value based on at least one of the distance between the residence of the provider and the residence of the client, the record of interactions (number of interactions) between the provider and the client, the number of common visits, and the client's individual evaluation of the provider.

(2) The reliability calculation processing unit calculates the reliability by adding values obtained by multiplying the first provider evaluation value and the second provider evaluation value by a predetermined ratio.

(3) In the matching support system, the ratio is changed depending on the client's service usage record.

With this configuration, a ratio according to the requester's service usage record is applied to the calculation of the reliability, so a more reliable reliability is calculated. This allows the requester to feel more secure when receiving the service from the requested provider.

(4) The reliability calculation processing unit changes the ratio so that the ratio of the second provider evaluation value in the reliability becomes relatively higher the more frequently the requester uses the service.

(5) The reliability calculation processing unit changes the ratio so that the ratio of the second provider evaluation value in the reliability becomes relatively lower the longer the period of non-use since the requester's last use of the service.

(6) The matching support system further includes a candidate selection processing unit that selects provider candidates that meet the request from the requester. In this case, the reliability calculation processing unit calculates the reliability of the provider candidates selected by the candidate selection processing unit.

With this configuration, it is necessary to calculate only the reliability of the provider candidates selected by the candidate selection processing unit, which improves the calculation speed of the reliability calculation process and reduces the calculation load.

(7) The matching support system further includes a transmission processing unit that transmits the provider candidates with high reliability calculated by the reliability calculation processing unit to a terminal device used by the requester.

(8) In the matching support system, the service is a local service provided as a mutual aid activity to the requester residing in a specified area by the provider residing in the same area.

(9) A matching support device according to another aspect of the present invention supports matching between a requester seeking the provision of a service and a provider providing the service. The matching support device includes a reliability calculation processing unit. The reliability calculation processing unit calculates the reliability of the provider in the client based on a first provider evaluation value of the provider evaluated based on the service implementation track record of the provider and a second provider evaluation value of the provider evaluated for each client based on the relationship between the requester and the provider.

(10) A reliability calculation method according to another aspect of the present invention includes a reliability calculation step, which calculates the reliability of the provider in the client based on a first provider evaluation value of the provider that is evaluated based on the service implementation performance of the provider and a second provider evaluation value of the provider that is evaluated for each client based on the relationship between the client and the provider requesting the provision of the service.

(11) The present invention can also be understood as a program for causing one or more processors to execute the steps of the reliability calculation method, or a computer-readable recording medium having such a program non-temporarily recorded thereon. The program is a reliability calculation program for causing one or more processors to execute a reliability calculation step of calculating the reliability of the provider in the client based on a first provider evaluation value for the provider that is evaluated based on the service implementation performance of the provider and a second provider evaluation value for the provider that is evaluated for each client based on the relationship between the client and the provider requesting the provision of the service.

According to the present invention, it is possible to reliably calculate the reliability of provider candidates who meet the matching request of the requester, and furthermore, it is possible to calculate a reliability with high plausibility.

FIG. 1 is a diagram showing a network connection configuration of a matching support system according to an embodiment of the present invention. FIG. 2 is a diagram showing the configuration of a server device included in the matching support system. FIG. 3 is a diagram showing the configuration of an information terminal used by a registered user. FIG. 4 is a diagram showing an example of request information including the contents of a request made by a requester to the matching support system. FIG. 5 is a diagram illustrating an example of a user information management table. FIG. 6 is a diagram illustrating an example of a provider information management table. FIG. 7 is a diagram showing an example of the contents of available services included in the provider registration information. FIG. 8 is a diagram showing an example of a calculation rule for performance evaluation points based on the performance of a service. FIG. 9 is a diagram showing an example of performance evaluation points. FIG. 10 is a diagram showing an example of customer evaluation points based on the relationship between a user registrant and a provider registrant. FIG. 11 is a diagram showing an example of a calculation rule for the customer evaluation points. FIG. 12 is a diagram showing an introduction route including common introducers for both the user registrant and the provider registrant. FIG. 13 is an application rate allocation table showing the allocation of application rates applied to ride sharing. FIG. 14 is an application rate deduction table showing the deduction rate according to the unused period of the requester. FIG. 15 is a flowchart illustrating an example of a procedure of the matching process executed by the control unit of the server device. FIG. 16 is a flowchart illustrating an example of a procedure of the matching process executed by the control unit of the server device. FIG. 17 is a flowchart illustrating an example of a procedure of a candidate selection process executed by the control unit of the server device. FIG. 18 is a flowchart illustrating an example of a procedure of a reliability calculation process executed by the control unit of the server device.

The following describes an embodiment of the present invention with reference to the drawings as appropriate. Note that the embodiment described below is merely an example of the present invention and does not limit the technical scope of the present invention.

FIG. 1 is a network diagram showing the configuration of a matching support system 100 including a server device 10 according to an embodiment of the present invention. In this embodiment, the matching support system 100 of the present invention is specifically realized by the server device 10 and information terminals 2 and 3 that constitute the matching support system 100.

The matching support system 100 is, for example, introduced in a local government that has jurisdiction over a specific region, and is a system that can be used by multiple registered users who have registered in advance. The matching support system 100 is a system that can match a requester (an example of a requester in the present invention) who requests to receive various local services among the multiple registered users, with a provider registered that can provide the local services (an example of a provider in the present invention), and can support smooth mutual aid activities between the requester and the provider registered.

Here, the multiple registered users (requesters and provider registrants) are those who are authorized to use the matching support system 100, that is, those who own an account to use the matching support system 100.

The local services are services provided to residents in a specific area under the jurisdiction of the local government. The local services generally include existing services such as transportation services such as railways, route buses, and taxis, medical services such as hospitals, nursing care services, welfare services for the disabled, childcare services such as daycare centers, school education, administrative services, and entertainment services, as well as life-related services closely related to the lives of residents and social services in which mutual interaction (two-way communication) between registered users plays a central role in the service. Examples of the life-related services include so-called ride sharing, shopping services, garden cleaning, grass cutting, snow shoveling, pet walking, housekeeping services, housekeeping guidance, house cleaning, temporary pet care, temporary child care, and sports guidance for children. The ride sharing service is a non-profit transportation service that uses the service provider's vehicles, etc.

The provider registrant is a person who satisfies the predetermined provider conditions for providing the local service. For example, if the local service is ride sharing, the provider conditions for ride sharing include requirements such as the number of years the driver's license has been held, the annual mileage of the vehicle, and the current age. If each of these requirements meets the standards set by the local government or the administrator, the provider is deemed to satisfy the provider conditions and is registered in the matching support system 100 as the provider registrant. For example, one example of the provider conditions is that the driver's license has been held for 5 years or more, the annual mileage of the vehicle is 10,000 km or more, and the age is less than 60. A person who satisfies these criteria is registered in the matching support system 100 as a provider registrant who can provide the ride sharing.

The following describes the matching support system 100 and the server device 10 of this embodiment, by illustrating an example of a process for matching between the requester and the registered provider when the requester receives the provision of the local service, such as the ride sharing. Note that, hereinafter, the local service may be simply referred to as a service.

[Configuration of matching support system 100]
1, the matching support system 100 includes a server device 10 (an example of a matching support device of the present invention), one or more information terminals 2 (an example of a terminal device of the present invention) used by the requester, and one or more information terminals 3 used by the provider registrant, which are communicatively connected to each other via a network N1 such as a dedicated line or a public line. The server device 10 is communicatively connected to a management terminal 20 via a network N2 such as a LAN.

The server device 10 is an information processing device managed by a local government that has jurisdiction over an autonomous region such as a city, town, or village, and is, for example, a server computer or a cloud server. Note that the server device 10 is not limited to a single computer, and may be a computer system in which multiple computers work together, or a cloud computing system. In addition, various processes executed by the server device 10 may be executed in a distributed manner by one or multiple processors.

The management terminal 20 is an information terminal device used by the administrator of the matching support system 100, and is, for example, a notebook computer or a desktop computer. The administrator accesses the matching support system 100 from the management terminal 20 and edits or updates various data, such as data registered in the system 100.

The information terminal 2 is a communication terminal device used by the requester, and the information terminal 3 is a communication terminal device used by the provider registrant. The information terminals 2 and 3 are, for example, mobile terminals such as smartphones and tablet terminals that can be carried around.

An application required for using the matching support system 100 is installed on the information terminals 2 and 3. The requester and the registered provider start the application on the information terminals 2 and 3, and use the matching support system 100 through the application. When a request for provision of a specific local service (such as ride sharing) is input from the information terminal 2 to the server device 10, the matching support system 100 selects one or more provider candidates (request matchers) that match the request from among the multiple registered providers. The server device 10 then transmits the selected provider candidates to the information terminal 2 that is the sender of the request. When a specific provider candidate is selected by the requester on the information terminal 2, a service provider that provides the requested service (hereinafter referred to as the "requested service") is determined, and the matching process between the requester and the service provider is completed.

When the requested service is actually performed by the service provider, the client transmits an evaluation of the service provider to the server device 10 through the application running on the information terminal 2. The service provider also transmits, through the application running on the information terminal 3, report information (implementation completion information) to the effect that the requested service has been completed, together with an evaluation of the client who has received the requested service, to the server device 10.

In providing local services such as ride sharing through mutual aid activities among residents, it is important for requesters who wish to receive the local service that the service provider is trustworthy. In particular, when receiving the lifestyle-related or social services, the presence or absence of a trusting relationship with the service provider is extremely important, due to the nature of the service. If the requester does not trust the service provider, he or she will not be able to confidently request the service provider to provide the local service, and even if he or she does request the service, he or she will not be able to receive the service with confidence.

In contrast, in this embodiment, the matching support system 100 is configured to accurately and reliably calculate the reliability of the provider candidates in response to the request of the requester, and present the provider candidates together with the reliability to the requester. This allows the requester to confidently select a service provider from the provider candidates who will actually provide the service, and to confidently receive the service from the service provider.

The following describes the server device 10, information terminals 2 and 3, etc. that make up the matching support system 100.

[Server device 10]
2 is a diagram showing the configuration of the server device 10. The server device 10 is for realizing the matching support system 100. In other words, the server device 10, as the matching support device of the present invention, realizes a system for supporting matching between the requester and the provider registrant for a specific local service.

When the server device 10 receives a request request and request information sent from an application running on the information terminal 2 via the network N1, the server device 10 is configured to refer to the requester information (such as the requester's ID) included in the request information, the request content, additional conditions for the service provider, etc., select the provider candidate that matches the request information, and transmit the request information to the information terminal 2.

As shown in FIG. 2, the server device 10 includes a control unit 11, a memory unit 12, a database 13, and a communication unit 14.

The communication unit 14 is a communication interface that connects the server device 10 to the networks N1 and N2 and performs data communication between the server device 10 and the multiple information terminals 2 and 3 and the management terminal 20 according to a predetermined communication protocol.

The storage unit 12 is a non-volatile storage medium or storage device including an HDD or SSD that stores various information. The storage unit 12 stores programs for causing the control unit 11 to execute various processes (see FIGS. 15 to 18) such as a matching process, a candidate selection process, and a reliability calculation process, which will be described later, as well as data and information used in the processes executed by the server device 10. In this embodiment, the storage unit 12 also stores an application rate allocation table 121 (see FIG. 13) and an application rate subtraction table 122 (see FIG. 14) used in the reliability calculation process.

The database 13 is a storage device such as an HDD or SSD that stores information about the registered users registered in the matching support system 100 (hereinafter referred to as "user registration information") and information about the registered providers registered in the matching support system 100 (hereinafter referred to as "provider registration information") in a manner that allows them to be managed as a database. The database 13 is not limited to a storage device provided in the server device 10, and may be configured as an external device such as another server device or storage device that can communicate data with the server device 10 via the Internet, etc.

The database 13 has storage areas such as a request information storage unit 131, a user information storage unit 132, a provider information storage unit 133, a matching record storage unit 134, and a customer evaluation storage unit 135. The information stored in each of the storage units 131 to 135 is used for the matching process, candidate selection process, and reliability calculation process (see Figures 15 to 18), which will be described later.

The request information storage unit 131 stores request information including the request contents made by the requester. When the application is started on the requester's information terminal 2, the application inputs the specified request contents into the request input screen displayed on the display unit 23A (see FIG. 3), and an execution instruction is then input, the request information is transmitted from the information terminal 2 to the server device 10 together with the request request. When the control unit 11 of the server device 10 receives the request request and the request information, it associates the request information with the requester's ID and temporarily stores it in the request information storage unit 131 for use in the matching process.

The request information includes requester information, the request content, additional conditions for the service provider, and the like. The requester information includes an ID (person identification information) for identifying the requester. The requester information may also include the requester's name, place of residence (address), and affiliation information of the community to which the requester belongs. The community will be described later.

The request details include the name of the service requested by the requester (service name), the specific service content (details), the desired date and time of implementation, etc.

The additional conditions are set individually by the requester at the time of the request, and are conditions imposed on the service provider in addition to the provider conditions determined at the time of registration of the service provider registrant. The additional conditions include, for example, gender, age, and the level of skill (skills, abilities, qualifications, etc.) related to the requested service. Note that in this embodiment, an example is described in which the additional conditions are set by the requester at the time of the request, but the additional conditions may be default values that are individually set in advance for each requester. The additional conditions may also be default values that are preset in accordance with the content of the requested service.

Figure 4 shows an example of the request information when a requester (registered user A1) requests "ride sharing" as a specific local service from the matching support system 100. In the example of Figure 4, the request includes the name of the desired service to be implemented, "ride sharing," and the specific service content, "pick-up and drop-off by car," as well as the specific time of pick-up and drop-off (desired date and time of implementation) and the specific pick-up and drop-off route. In addition, the additional conditions include a condition that the age is under 55 years old, and a condition that the person has held a driver's license for 10 years or more.

When matching is established through the matching process described below and the requested service is implemented by the service provider, the implemented request information is registered in the matching record data in the matching record storage unit 134 described below, and the implemented request information is deleted from the request information storage unit 131.

The user information storage unit 132 stores multiple pieces of user registration information related to each of multiple registered users who use the matching support system 100. Specifically, a user information management table 132A (see FIG. 5) containing the multiple pieces of user registration information is stored in the user information storage unit 132.

Figure 5 shows an example of the user information management table 132A. As shown in Figure 5, the user information management table 132A has a plurality of pieces of user registration information registered for each ID (user ID) indicating a registered user. The user registration information includes, for example, the user ID, the name of the registered user (A1, A2, ...), the community to which the registered user belongs (C1, C2, ...), the introducer who introduced the registered user, the number of times the matching support system 100 has been used, individual evaluation points awarded by the service provider, and the like. Although not shown in Figure 5, the user's gender, age, address, contact information (telephone number, email address), and the like may also be included in the user registration information.

The user registration information is newly registered in the user information management table 132A when the application for registration to use the matching support system 100 is approved. When a person (applicant) who wishes to use the matching support system 100 applies for registration to the matching support system 100 via the application and the application is approved, a new account including a user ID is issued to the applicant. Then, the user information including the applicant's personal information and community information entered together with the registration application is registered in the user information management table 132A. Note that when the name and user ID of another registration applicant who is already using the matching support system 100 is entered as an introducer at the time of the registration application, the introducer's information is also registered in the user information management table 132A.

Here, the number of uses (see FIG. 5) is, for example, the cumulative number of times a specific service (e.g., ride sharing) was provided via the matching support system 100 during a specific period. The specific period is an arbitrarily determined period, for example, the most recent year (the year before the last use). In this embodiment, the number of uses is counted separately for each service handled by the matching support system 100. Note that in the user information management table 132A in FIG. 5, the number of uses is not shown separately for each service, but shows the number of uses using the matching support system 100. For example, when the server device 10 receives report information (implementation completion information) from the service provider that the requested service has been completed, the control unit 11 counts up the number of uses corresponding to the service and updates the corresponding user registration information. Note that the number of uses is not limited to the number counted separately for each service, and may be, for example, the number of times the matching support system 100 was used regardless of the service used. The number of uses is used in the reliability calculation process described later.

The individual evaluation points are the average value of the evaluation points individually given to the client by the service provider each time a service is performed. For example, when the server device 10 receives the evaluation points for the client upon receiving report information (implementation completion information) from the service provider that the requested service has been completed, the control unit 11 of the server device 10 updates the individual evaluation points.

The provider information storage unit 133 stores multiple provider registration information related to the provider registrants who are registered as persons who can provide services in the matching support system 100. Specifically, a provider information management table 133A (see FIG. 6) including the multiple provider registration information is stored in the provider information storage unit 133.

FIG. 6 shows an example of the provider information management table 133A. As shown in FIG. 6, the provider information management table 133A has a plurality of pieces of provider registration information registered for each ID indicating the provider registrant. The provider registration information includes, for example, an ID indicating the provider registrant, the name of the provider registrant (B1, B2, ...), the community to which the provider registrant belongs (C1, C2, ...), the number of times the service has been provided by the matching support system 100, the types of services that can be provided, and performance evaluation points calculated based on past service performance (an example of the first provider evaluation value of the present invention). Although not shown in FIG. 6, the gender, age, address, contact information (telephone number, email address), etc. of the provider registrant may also be included in the provider registration information.

The provider registration information is newly registered in the provider information management table 133A when the provider's registration application is approved in the matching support system 100. When a person (applicant) who wishes to register the provider in the matching support system 100 applies for registration and the application is approved, an ID is issued to the applicant. The provider registration information, which includes the applicant's personal information entered together with the registration application, information on the community to which the applicant belongs, the types of services that can be provided, etc., is then registered in the provider information management table 133A in the provider information storage unit 133.

Figure 7 shows an example of the content of the available services registered as the provider registration information. As shown in Figure 7, the provider registration information also includes the specific content of the available services. For example, in the example of provider B1 shown in Figure 7, the service content includes the name of the available service "ride sharing" and the specific service content "pick-up and drop-off by car", as well as the specific time when pick-up and drop-off are available (available date and time) and the range of availability. The provider registration information may also include requester conditions imposed by the provider on the requester. The requester conditions may be, for example, a requirement to limit the target of the service (registered user who receives the service) to registered users who live in the same residential area as the provider, age restrictions, gender, etc.

Here, the number of times of implementation (see FIG. 6) is, for example, the cumulative number of times a specific service (e.g., ride sharing) was provided to a requester via the matching support system 100 during a specific period. The specific period is an arbitrarily determined period, for example, the most recent year (the year before the last service was provided). The number of times of implementation is counted separately for each service handled by the matching support system 100. For example, when the server device 10 receives report information (implementation completion information) from the service provider that the requested service has been completed, the control unit 11 counts up the number of times of implementation corresponding to the service and updates the corresponding provider registration information. This number of times of implementation is used in the reliability calculation process described later.

The performance evaluation points are evaluated based on the performance of the service provided by the service provider, and are an evaluation value assigned to each service provider.

Figure 8 shows an example of a calculation rule for the performance evaluation points based on the performance when the service provider provides ride sharing, an example of a local service, to a requester. In the example of Figure 8, five evaluation items are defined for use in evaluating the performance evaluation points, and for each evaluation item, an allocation of evaluation points (point allocation) according to the performance of the service provider is defined. The performance evaluation points are the total points allocated to each evaluation item. For each evaluation item, the maximum point is defined as 1 point and the minimum point is defined as 0 point, therefore, the maximum performance evaluation points are 5 points and the minimum point is 0 point.

Specifically, for the evaluation item "accident history" in Figure 8, if the service provider has not caused even one traffic accident in a specific period (e.g., the most recent year), the service provider is evaluated as having 1 point, if the service provider has caused one traffic accident, the service provider is evaluated as having 0.5 point, and if the service provider has caused two or more traffic accidents, the service provider is evaluated as having 0 point.

The evaluation item "cumulative evaluation" is what is called customer evaluation, and is the average value of evaluation points given individually to the service provider by the requester who received the service each time the requested service is performed. The evaluation points given by the requester are divided into five levels from 1 to 5, and if the average value is between 4.5 and less than 5, it is judged as "excellent", and in this case, it is rated as 1 point. If the average value is between 3.5 and less than 4.5, it is judged as "good", and in this case, it is rated as 0.75 points. If the average value is between 2.5 and less than 3.5, it is judged as "passable", and in this case, it is rated as 0.5 points. If the average value is between 1.5 and less than 2.5, it is judged as "unsatisfactory", and in this case, it is rated as 0.25 points. Also, if the average value is between 1 and less than 1.5, it is judged as "unsatisfactory", and in this case, it is rated as 0 points.

The evaluation item "Number of times implemented" is the cumulative number of times the service provider implemented the requested service in a specific period (e.g., the most recent year). Implementation times of 10 or more are evaluated as 1 point, 7-9 times as 0.75 points, 4-6 times as 0.5 points, 2-3 times as 0.25 points, and 0 times as 0 points.

The evaluation item "unimplemented period" is the amount of time that has elapsed since the last time the service was provided to the client. If the unimplemented period is less than one week, it is evaluated as 1 point, if it is between one week and two weeks, it is evaluated as 0.75 point, if it is between two weeks and three weeks, it is evaluated as 0.5 point, if it is between three weeks and four weeks, it is evaluated as 0.25 point, and if it is four weeks or more, it is evaluated as 0 point.

The evaluation item "community attributes" is an evaluation item related to the community to which the service provider belongs. Specifically, the community is a so-called local community organized by residents in an area (e.g., a city, town, or village) where multiple residents live. The local community is also called a local community. Multiple local communities are formed in the area according to their purpose. Such local communities carry out a wide range of activities in the areas where their members live according to various purposes, such as education and welfare for residents within the area, crime prevention, cleaning of roads and waterways within the area, care for the elderly, ensuring public transportation, disseminating information, resident exchange, and so-called town revitalization. For example, examples of local communities in Japan include neighborhood associations and town associations organized on a city, town, or village basis, educational organizations (such as PTAs: Parent-Teacher Associations) organized by people associated with schools in the area (mainly the parents and teachers of students), shopping district organizations (such as shopping district promotion associations) that are a group of operators of shops in the area, sports clubs and voluntary disaster prevention organizations (such as fire brigades) formed by local residents for a common purpose, children's groups, parenting circles, welfare volunteers, senior citizens' clubs, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, etc.

In general, members who belong to such communities are active in working to achieve the goals set for the community they belong to while also engaging in cooperative activities and mutual aid activities among themselves, and are relatively more trusted than those who do not belong to any particular community. In particular, the representative of the community (administrator or leader) is highly trusted by each member. The representative of the community, for example, would be the head of the neighborhood association if the community is the neighborhood association, the head of the neighborhood association if the neighborhood association is the town association, the PTA chairman if the PTA is the PTA, the head of the shopping district promotion association if the shopping district promotion association is the association, a coach or other leader if the sports club is the sports club, the head of the fire brigade if the fire brigade is the fire brigade, or the chairman if the children's association is the association.

Therefore, for the evaluation item "community attributes," a service provider is scored as 1 if he or she is a representative of a specific community, scored as 0.5 if he or she is merely a member, and scored as 0 if he or she is unaffiliated with any community.

Of the five evaluation items shown in FIG. 8, the server device 10 can calculate or determine information related to "cumulative evaluation," "number of times performed," and "period of unperformed service" based on the report information sent from the service provider's information terminal 3 after the requested service is performed, or the evaluation points sent from the requester's information terminal 2. Furthermore, the server device 10 can obtain information related to "accident history" and "community attributes" from information entered by the provider registrant when the provider registration information is periodically updated.

Figure 9 shows an example of performance evaluation points for provider registrant B1 shown in Figure 6. According to the example in Figure 9, the accident history of provider registrant B1 is "0 times", the cumulative evaluation is "good", the number of times implemented is "9 times (see Figure 6)", the non-implementation period is "15 days", and the community attribute is a member belonging to a specific community. Therefore, when calculated based on the calculation rules described above, the performance evaluation points for provider registrant B1 are "3 points".

The customer evaluation storage unit 135 stores customer evaluation points (an example of the second provider evaluation value of the present invention) for the provider registrant that are evaluated based on the relationship between the user registrant and the provider registrant. The customer evaluation points are evaluated for each provider registrant. In this embodiment, the customer evaluation points for each of the multiple provider registrants for each user registrant are stored in the customer evaluation storage unit 135 as a database.

Figure 10 shows a list of the customer evaluation points of the user registrant A1 shown in Figure 5. Figure 10 shows the customer evaluation points for each provider registrant B1, B2, ... from whom the user registrant A1 has received services in the past. In the example of Figure 10, the customer evaluation points of the provider registrant B1 are rated at 3.15 points, the customer evaluation points of the provider registrant B2 are rated at 2.75 points, and the customer evaluation points of the provider registrant B3 are rated at 3 points. The customer evaluation points are the total points of evaluation points assessed based on the five evaluation items described below that indicate the relationship between the user registrant A1 and each provider registrant. For each evaluation item, the maximum score is set to 1 point and the minimum score is set to 0 points, and therefore the maximum customer evaluation points are 5 points and the minimum score is 0 points.

Figure 11 shows an example of a calculation rule for the customer evaluation points. In the example of Figure 11, five evaluation items used in the evaluation of the customer evaluation points are defined, and the allocation of evaluation points (point allocation) to the service provider is defined for each evaluation item. The customer evaluation points are the total points allocated to each evaluation item. For each evaluation item, the maximum point is defined as 1 point, and the minimum point is defined as 0 point, therefore, the maximum point of the customer evaluation points is 5 points, and the minimum point is 0 point.

Specifically, the evaluation item "location distance" in FIG. 11 is an example of the relationship, and is the distance between the location (e.g., address) of the provider registrant and the location (e.g., address) of the user registrant. The evaluation of the location distance is such that the closer the location of the provider registrant is to the address of the user registrant, the higher the score is given, and the farther the score is, the lower the score is given. In other words, the closer the location distance between the two, the higher the mutual trust is determined, and the farther the location distance, the lower the mutual trust is determined. In this embodiment, if the provider registrant lives in the same address area (e.g., within a town) as the user registrant, the score is 1, if they live in the same local government (city, town, village), the score is 0.5, and if they live in different local governments, the score is 0.

The evaluation item "number of referral paths" is an example of the relationship, and is the number of referrals on the referral route including the common introducer of the user registrant and the provider registrant when the introducer exists between the user registrant and the provider registrant. For example, as shown in FIG. 12, when the common introducer exists on the introducer of user registrant A1, on the referral route R1 when tracing back from that introducer, and on the introducer of provider registrant B1, on the referral route R2 when tracing back from that introducer, the number of referral paths is the number of referrals on all referral routes (R1+R2) (five in the example of FIG. 12). The number of referral paths can be found based on the information of the introducer included in the user registration information stored in database 13.

The evaluation of the number of introduction paths is such that the fewer the number of introduction paths, the higher the score is given, and the more the number of introduction paths, the lower the score is given. In other words, the fewer the number of introduction paths, the higher the trust between the two parties, and the more the number of introduction paths, the lower the trust is determined to be. In this embodiment, when the number of introduction paths is one, that is, when the introducer of the user registrant is the provider registrant, the evaluation is given as 1 point. Also, when the number of introduction paths is two, the evaluation is given as 0.8 points, when it is three, the evaluation is given as 0.6 points, when it is four, the evaluation is given as 0.4 points, when it is five, the evaluation is given as 0.2 points, and when it is six or more, the evaluation is given as 0.1 points. Also, when there is no common introducer (when there is no connection in the introduction route), the evaluation is given as 0 points.

The evaluation item "number of interactions" is an example of the relationship, and is the cumulative number of times the registered user and the registered provider have actually interacted during a specific period (e.g., the most recent year). This number can be calculated by the server device 10 based on GPS location information received from the information terminal 2 of the registered user and the information terminal 3 of the registered provider. For example, if the location information of both indicates a range that can be determined to be roughly the same at the same time, it can be determined that the information terminals 2 and 3 of both are in close proximity and that the registered user and the registered provider are actually interacting (meeting). The control unit 11 of the server device 10 counts the number of interactions and stores it in the memory unit 12.

The more the number of interactions, the higher the score given, and the fewer the number of interactions, the lower the score given. In other words, the more the number of interactions, the higher the trust between the two parties is determined to be, and the fewer the number of interactions, the lower the trust is determined to be. In this embodiment, if the number of interactions is 5 or more, it is evaluated as 1 point. Also, if the number of interactions is 3 to 4 times, it is evaluated as 0.75 points, if it is 2 times, it is evaluated as 0.5 points, if it is 1 time, it is evaluated as 0.25 points, and if it is 0 times, it is evaluated as 0 points.

The evaluation item "number of common visits" is an example of the relationship, and is the number of common places (common visits) visited by the user registrant and the provider registrant during a specific period (e.g., the most recent year). In other words, it is the number of common places visited by both during the specific period. The common places are, for example, sports facilities, tourist spots, exercise or language classes or schools, restaurants, etc. It can be inferred that the user registrant and the provider registrant have similar hobbies and sensibilities, such as their perceptions and feelings about things, if they have visited a common place, even if the visit dates and times were different, rather than never visiting the common place, and thus it can be determined that the trust between the two is high. Therefore, it is considered that the more common places there are, the closer the sensibilities are and the higher the trust between the two.

The number of common visited destinations can be calculated by the server device 10 based on travel route information based on GPS location information received from the information terminal 2 of the registered user and the information terminal 3 of the registered provider. For example, if the common location is included in the travel route information of both users and the time spent at the location is a predetermined time (e.g., 30 minutes or more), the control unit 11 of the server device 10 can determine that both users have visited the location, count the number of common visited destinations, and store it in the memory unit 12.

The more common destinations there are, the higher the score is given, and the fewer the common destinations, the lower the score is given. In other words, the more common destinations there are, the higher the trust between the two parties is determined to be, and the fewer the number of common destinations, the lower the trust is determined to be. In this embodiment, if the number of common destinations is 5 or more, it is evaluated as 1 point. Also, if the number of common destinations is 3 to 4, it is evaluated as 0.5 point, if it is 2, it is evaluated as 0.25 point, and if it is 0, it is evaluated as 0 point.

The evaluation item "individual evaluation" is what is called a customer evaluation, and is an evaluation point that is individually given to the service provider by the client who received the service each time the requested service is performed. The evaluation points given by the client are divided into five levels from 1 to 5, and if the evaluation point is 4.5 or more and less than 5, it is judged as "excellent", and in this case, it is evaluated as 1 point. If the evaluation point is 3.5 or more and less than 4.5, it is judged as "good", and in this case, it is evaluated as 0.75 point. If the evaluation point is 2.5 or more and less than 3.5, it is judged as "passable", and in this case, it is evaluated as 0.5 point. If the evaluation point is 1.5 or more and less than 2.5, it is judged as "unsatisfactory", and in this case, it is evaluated as 0.25 point. Also, if the evaluation point is 1 or more and less than 1.5, it is judged as "unsatisfactory", and in this case, it is evaluated as 0 point.

The control unit 11 controls the operation of each part of the server device 10. The control unit 11 has control devices such as a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM. The CPU is a processor that executes various arithmetic processes. The ROM is a non-volatile storage medium in which control programs such as a BIOS and an OS for causing the CPU to execute various arithmetic processes are stored in advance. The RAM is a volatile or non-volatile storage medium that stores various information, and is used as a temporary storage memory (work area) for the various arithmetic processes executed by the CPU. The control unit 11 controls the server device 10 by the CPU executing various control programs stored in advance in the ROM or the storage unit 12.

As shown in FIG. 2, the control unit 11 includes various processing units such as a candidate selection processing unit 111 (an example of a candidate selection processing unit of the present invention), a reliability calculation processing unit 112 (an example of a reliability calculation processing unit of the present invention), and a transmission processing unit 113. The control unit 11 functions as the various processing units by the CPU executing various arithmetic processing in accordance with the control program. The control unit 11 or the CPU is an example of a processor or computer that executes the control program. Note that some or all of the processing units included in the control unit 11 may be configured with electronic circuits. The control program may also be a program for causing multiple processors to function as the various processing units.

The candidate selection processing unit 111 performs a process (candidate selection process) of selecting provider candidates that match the request from the requester. Specifically, when the candidate selection processing unit 111 receives the request from the information terminal 2 owned by the requester via the network N1, it selects the provider candidates that match the request from the provider information management table 133A in the provider information storage unit 133.

The reliability calculation processing unit 112 calculates the reliability of the provider requester in the requester based on the performance evaluation points for each provider registrant included in the provider information management table 133A and the customer evaluation points of the requester for the provider registrant. In this embodiment, the reliability calculation processing unit 112 calculates the reliability of one or more of the provider candidates selected by the candidate selection processing unit 111.

Specifically, the reliability calculation processing unit 112 calculates the reliability as a total evaluation point (an example of an evaluation value of the present invention) obtained by multiplying each of the performance evaluation points and the customer evaluation points by a predetermined application rate (an example of a ratio of the present invention). The total evaluation point is calculated by adding values obtained by multiplying each of the performance evaluation points and the customer evaluation points by the evaluation rate. In this embodiment, if the performance evaluation point is P ₁ , the application rate set for the performance evaluation point P ₁ is S ₁ (%), the customer evaluation point is P2, and the application rate set for the customer evaluation point P ₂ is S ₂ (%), the total evaluation point P, i.e., the reliability P, can be expressed by the following formula (1). Note that the application rate S ₁ and the application rate S ₂ have a relationship of S ₁ =100-S ₂ .

P = _S1P1 / ₁₀₀ + _S2P2 / ₁₀₀ ... (1)

In other words, the reliability P is the sum of the number of points obtained by multiplying the performance evaluation points _P1 by the application rate _S1 and the number of points obtained by multiplying the customer evaluation points _P2 by the application rate _S2 .

The application rates _S1 and _S2 may be fixed, but in this embodiment, the application rates are changed based on the number of uses (an example of the number of times the service has been used in the present invention, or the service usage record) included in the user registration information of the client.

Specifically, the reliability calculation processing unit 112 changes the application rate so that the ratio of the customer evaluation point _P2 in the reliability P (total evaluation point P) becomes relatively higher as the number of times of use by the requester increases. The reason for this is that when the number of times of use is small, the accuracy of the reliability P is improved by placing more importance on the performance evaluation point _P1 than on the customer evaluation point _P2 , and conversely, when the number of times of use is large, the accuracy of the reliability P is improved by placing more importance on the customer evaluation point _P2 than on the performance evaluation point _P1 .

In this embodiment, the application rate allocation table 121 (see FIG. 13) is stored in the storage unit 12, and the reliability calculation processing unit 112 changes the application rate based on the application rate allocation table 121 and the number of uses by the client. Here, the application rate allocation table 121 is an allocation table that determines the application rate _S1 and the application rate _S2 according to the number of uses.

For example, suppose that the application rate allocation table 121 shown in FIG. 13 indicates the allocation of application rates applied to ride sharing. In this case, if the number of times the requester has used ride sharing (number of uses) is 0, the application rate S ₁ is set to 80%, and the application rate S ₂ is set to 20%. If the number of uses is 1 to 2, the application rate S ₁ is set to 70%, and the application rate S ₂ is set to 30%. If the number of uses is 3 to 5, the application rate S ₁ is set to 60%, and the application rate S ₂ is set to 40%. If the number of uses is 6 to 8, the application rate S ₁ is set to 50%, and the application rate S ₂ is set to 50%. If the number of uses is 9 to 15, the application rate S ₁ is set to 40%, and the application rate S ₂ is set to 60%. If the number of uses is between 16 and 20, the application rate _S1 is set to 30% and the application rate _S2 is set to 70%. If the number of uses is 21 or more, the application rate _S1 is set to 20% and the application rate _S2 is set to 80%.

In addition, the reliability calculation processing unit 112 changes the application rate so that the ratio of the customer evaluation point _P2 in the reliability P becomes relatively lower as the unused period from the last use by the requester becomes longer. The reason for this is that when the unused period is long, there is a high possibility that a factor that reduces the accuracy of the customer evaluation point _P2 will occur during the unused period. In other words, when the unused period is long, the accuracy of the reliability P is improved by placing more importance on the performance evaluation point _P1 than on the customer evaluation point _P2 , and conversely, when the unused period is short, the accuracy of the reliability P is improved by placing more importance on the customer evaluation point _P2 than on the performance evaluation point _P1 . Note that, as the factor of the decrease, for example, an increase in the number of the provision registrants to whom the requester has not given evaluation points due to an increase in new registrations of the provision registrants, a change in the qualities of the provision registrants over time, etc., can be considered.

The unused period is calculated by the control unit 11. Specifically, when the control unit 11 receives the request from the information terminal 2 via the network N1, it refers to the matching result data in the matching result storage unit 134 and checks the requester's past usage history to calculate the unused period.

In this embodiment, the application rate subtraction table 122 (see FIG. 14) is stored in the storage unit 12, and the reliability calculation processing unit 112 changes the application rate _S1 and the application rate _S2 applied to the above formula (1) based on the application rate subtraction table 122. Here, the application rate subtraction table 122 is a table that defines the subtraction rate Sr according to the unused period.

For example, as shown in Fig. 14, if the unused period of the requester is less than one month, the subtraction rate Sr is ±0%, and in this case, neither the application rate _S1 nor the application rate _S2 is changed (subtracted). Also, if the unused period is one month or more but less than six months, the application rate _S1 is increased by 5%, and the application rate _S2 is decreased by 5%. If the unused period is six months or more but less than December, the application rate _S1 is increased by 10%, and the application rate _S2 is decreased by 10%. If the unused period is one year or more, the application rate _S1 is increased by 15%, and the application rate _S2 is decreased by 15%.

The transmission processing unit 113 performs a process (transmission process) of transmitting the provider candidates selected by the candidate selection processing unit 111 and the reliability calculated by the reliability calculation processing unit 112 via the network N1 to the information terminal 2 used by the user who made the request.

[Information terminal 2]
A specific configuration of the information terminal 2 will be described below with reference to Fig. 3. Fig. 3 is a diagram showing the configuration of the information terminal 2.

As shown in FIG. 3, the information terminal 2 includes a control unit 21, a memory unit 22, an operation display unit 23, a GPS receiving unit 25, a communication unit 26, etc.

The communication unit 26 is a communication interface for connecting the information terminal 2 to the network N1 by wire or wirelessly and for performing data communication with the server device 10 via the network N1 in accordance with a predetermined communication protocol.

The storage unit 22 is a non-volatile storage medium such as a flash memory that stores various types of information. The storage unit 22 stores control programs for causing the control unit 21 to execute various types of calculation processing, applications necessary for using the matching support system 100, data used in various types of calculation processing, and the like.

The operation display unit 23 is a user interface that includes a display unit 23A such as a liquid crystal display or an organic EL display that displays various information, and an operation unit (not shown) such as a mouse, keyboard, or touch panel that accepts user operations.

The GPS receiver 25 acquires the current location information of the information terminal 2. The GPS receiver 25 receives signals from GPS satellites and performs a predetermined calculation process to detect the location on Earth.

The control unit 21 controls the operation of each part of the information terminal 2. The control unit 11 has control devices such as a CPU, a ROM, and a RAM. The CPU is a processor that executes various arithmetic processes. The ROM is a non-volatile storage medium in which control programs such as a BIOS and an OS for causing the CPU to execute various arithmetic processes are stored in advance. The RAM is a volatile or non-volatile storage medium that stores various information, and is used as a temporary storage memory (work area) for the various arithmetic processes executed by the CPU. The control unit 21 controls the information terminal 2 by having the CPU execute various control programs that are stored in advance in the ROM or the storage unit 22.

When the control unit 21 receives the provider candidates and the reliability levels transmitted by the transmission processing unit 113 described above, it displays the provider candidates on the display unit 23A in order of decreasing reliability.

[Matching process]
Hereinafter, an example of the procedure of the matching process (including the candidate selection process and the reliability calculation process) for matching a requester with a provider registrant will be described with reference to the flowcharts of Figures 15 to 18. The reliability calculation method of the present invention will be described. It is assumed that the requester starts the application on his/her own information terminal 2, and logs in to the matching support system 100 from the information terminal 2 using this application.

As shown in FIG. 15, in step S11, the control unit 11 determines whether or not a login request for login authentication has been received from the information terminal 2 of the requester. After receiving the login request and authenticating the ID and password of the requester, the control unit 11 permits login from the information terminal 2 of the requester.

When the login is complete, the requester operates the information terminal 2 to input the request information, including the request request and specific request content, into the request input screen, and then executes the transmission process of the request request.

In the next step S73, the control unit 11 determines whether or not the request request has been received from the information terminal 2. If it is determined that the request request has been received, the control unit 11 executes a candidate selection process in the next step S13 to set provider candidates (candidates) that match the request request. Step S13 in which the candidate selection process is performed is an example of a candidate selection step.

As shown in FIG. 17, the candidate selection process is executed by the control unit 11 according to the procedure from steps S131 to S134.

First, in step S131, the control unit 11 compares the multiple provider registration information registered in the provider information management table 133A (see FIG. 6) with the request content (see FIG. 4) included in the request information received in step S12, and extracts a suitable provider who matches the request content from among the multiple provider registrations registered in the provider information management table 133A.

Then, the control unit 11 further extracts, from the suitable persons extracted in step S131, suitable persons who meet the additional conditions (see FIG. 4) included in the request information (S132). After that, the control unit 11 creates a candidate list including the suitable persons extracted in step S132 (S133). This ends the candidate selection process.

If it is determined in steps S131 and S132 that there is no suitable candidate, the process proceeds to step S134, where flag information is set to indicate that no candidate donors were found, and the process then ends.

As shown in FIG. 15, when the candidate selection process (S13) is completed, the control unit 11 determines in step S14 whether or not a provider candidate has been selected. That is, if the candidate selection process determines that there is a person who meets the request and the candidate list has been created, the control unit 11 determines that there is a provider candidate. On the other hand, if the flag information indicating that there is no provider candidate is set in step S134, the control unit 11 determines that there is no provider candidate.

If no provider candidate is selected (No in S14), the control unit 11 sends a notification to the requester's information terminal 2 indicating that no provider candidate was found (S14A), and then the matching process ends without matching being established.

On the other hand, if a donor candidate is selected in step S14, the control unit 11 executes a reliability calculation process in the next step S15 to calculate the reliability of all donor candidates included in the candidate list. Step S15 for performing the reliability calculation process is an example of a reliability calculation step of the present invention.

As shown in FIG. 18, the reliability calculation process is executed by the control unit 11 according to the procedure from steps S151 to S157.

First, in step S151, the control unit 11 selects one provider candidate from the candidate list in the order of ID numbers, and obtains the performance evaluation points corresponding to the selected provider candidate from the provider information management table 133A (see FIG. 6).

Next, in step S152, the control unit 11 refers to the database of requesters in the customer evaluation storage unit 135 to determine whether or not there are customer evaluation points (see FIG. 10) corresponding to the selected provider candidate. If it is determined that there are customer evaluation points, the control unit 11 obtains the customer evaluation points from the customer evaluation storage unit 135 (S153). On the other hand, if it is determined that there are no customer evaluation points, a predetermined standard value is obtained from the storage unit 12 as the customer evaluation points (S154). Note that the standard value is, for example, a predetermined fixed value or the average value of the customer evaluation points of all registered providers that have already been granted by the requester, and is stored in advance in the storage unit 12.

Thereafter, the control unit 11 obtains the application rates _S1 , _S2 corresponding to the number of times the requester has used the service from the application rate allocation table 121 (see FIG. 13) (S155), and further obtains the subtraction rate Sr corresponding to the period of non-use by the requester from the application rate subtraction table 122 (see FIG. 14) (S156).

When all information used to calculate the reliability, i.e., the performance evaluation points, the customer evaluation points, the application rates _S1 and _S2 , and the subtraction rate Sr, is acquired, the control unit 11 subtracts the application rates _S1 and _S2 by the subtraction rate Sr in step S157, and then applies the subtracted application rates _S1 and _S2 , the performance evaluation points, and the customer evaluation points to the above-mentioned formula (1) to calculate the reliability. The calculated reliability is recorded in the candidate list (S158).

Next, in step S159, if there are other provider candidates for which the reliability is to be calculated, the control unit 11 repeats the processes from step S151 onward. On the other hand, if there are no other provider candidates, the reliability calculation process ends.

As shown in FIG. 15, when the reliability calculation process (S15) is completed, the control unit 11 determines whether or not there are multiple provider candidates in the candidate list (S16). If there is only one candidate, the process proceeds to step S20.

If it is determined in step S16 that there is more than one candidate, then in the next step S17, the control unit 11 executes a sorting process to sort the multiple provider candidates in descending order of reliability (S17). In other words, the control unit 11 updates the candidate list and sorts the multiple provider candidates in descending order of reliability.

In the next step S18, the control unit 11 determines whether the number of candidates is equal to or greater than a predetermined threshold. This determination is made to determine whether the number of provider candidates is too large. If it is determined in step S18 that the number of candidates is less than the threshold, the control unit 11 proceeds to step S20 and transmits the candidate list to the requester's information terminal 2 in order to present the candidate list to the requester. At this time, a message is also transmitted to prompt the requester to select a provider who wishes to provide a service from the candidate list.

When the information terminal 2 receives the candidate list, the control unit 21 displays the candidate list on the display unit 23A (see FIG. 3) of the information terminal 2, presents the candidate list to the requester, and prompts the requester to select a desired provider from the candidate list.

As shown in FIG. 16, in the next step S21, the control unit 11 determines whether or not a candidate has been selected based on the information received from the information terminal 2.

If it is determined in step S21 that a candidate has not been selected, the control unit 11 determines in step S21A whether or not a request cancellation has been received from the information terminal 2. If the request cancellation has been received from the information terminal 2 in step S21A (Yes in S21A), the matching process ends without matching being established.

On the other hand, if it is determined in step S21 that a candidate has been selected (Yes in S21), a request acceptance request is sent to the information terminal 3 of the selected candidate together with the request content (S22). This request acceptance request is sent to the information terminal 3 of the candidate by a notification means such as e-mail, for example.

In the next step S23, the control unit 11 determines whether or not a request acceptance notification has been received from the candidate's information terminal 3. If the request acceptance notification has been received, the control unit 11 transmits a notification indicating that a match has been established to both the requester and the provider candidate (acceptor) who accepted the request (S24), and then registers the matching details in the matching record data in the matching record storage unit 134 (S25).

On the other hand, if the request acceptance notification is not received and a notification of refusal to accept is received, the control unit 11 sends a notification to the requester's information terminal 2 indicating that matching has not been established (S23A). After that, the series of matching processes ends.

As described above, in this embodiment, the reliability calculation process is executed by the control unit 11 in the above-mentioned matching process. Then, in the reliability calculation process, the reliability is calculated based on the performance evaluation points and the customer evaluation points. Therefore, a highly credible reliability is reliably calculated. As a result, the requester can use the matching support system 100 with peace of mind, and the requester can select a provider candidate based on the calculated reliability, so that the requester can receive services from the provider with peace of mind.

In the above embodiment, the application rates _S1 and _S2 used to calculate the reliability are changed based on the number of uses included in the user registration information of the requester, so that the reliability is calculated according to the number of uses of the requester. This allows a more reliable reliability to be calculated. As a result, the requester can feel more secure when receiving the service from the requested provider.

After the control unit 11 selects a provider candidate that meets the request from the requester, it calculates the reliability of the selected provider candidate. Therefore, the control unit 11 only needs to calculate the reliability of the selected provider candidate. This improves the processing speed of the reliability calculation process and reduces the load of the calculation process compared to the case where the reliability of all provider registrants is calculated in advance and then a provider candidate is selected.

In the above embodiment, the process of calculating the reliability of the selected provider candidate after the provider candidate is selected is illustrated, but the present invention is not limited to this process example. For example, before the provider candidate is selected, the reliability of all provider registrants may be calculated in advance, and the subsequent provider candidate may be selected.

In the above embodiment, the application rate _S1 and the application rate _S2 are changed based on the number of times of use by the client, but the present invention is not limited to such a change example. For example, if the application rate _S1 is constant (fixed value) regardless of the number of times of use, the application rate _S2 may be changed in proportion to the number of times of use. That is, the more the number of times of use, the higher the application rate _S2 may be, and the less the number of times of use, the lower the application rate _S2 may be. Alternatively, if the application rate _S2 is constant (fixed value) regardless of the number of times of use, the application rate _S1 may be changed in inverse proportion to the number of times of use. That is, the more the number of times of use, the lower the application rate _S1 may be, and the less the number of times of use, the higher the application rate _S1 may be.

In addition, in the above embodiment, an example of application to the regional service has been described, but the above-mentioned matching support system 100 is not limited to application to the regional service, and can also be applied to a system that matches the requester with the registered provider in any service, whether paid or free, such as food and drink catering services, luggage and person transportation services, and production services for web design, illustrations, videos, programs, etc.

In addition, in the above embodiment, a matching support system 100 that is realized by executing each of the above-mentioned processes in the server device 10 is exemplified, but it is also possible to regard the server device 10 that is capable of executing each of the above-mentioned processes as one embodiment of the matching support device of the present invention.

2, 3: Information terminal 10: Server device 11: Control unit 12: Storage unit 13: Database 100: Matching support system 111: Candidate selection processing unit 112: Reliability calculation processing unit 113: Transmission processing unit 121: Application rate allocation table 122: Application rate subtraction table 131: Request information storage unit 132: User information storage unit 132A: User information management table 133: Provider information storage unit 133A: Provider information management table 134: Matching performance storage unit 135: Customer evaluation storage unit

Claims (11)

A matching support system that supports matching between a requester who desires a service and a provider who provides the service,
a reliability calculation processing unit that calculates the reliability of the provider in the client by multiplying a first provider evaluation value of the provider, which is evaluated based on a service implementation record of the provider when the provider has implemented the service , and a second provider evaluation value of the provider, which is evaluated based on a relationship between the client and the provider , by a predetermined ratio, and adding the obtained values to the first provider evaluation value and the second provider evaluation value ,
The reliability calculation processing unit:
A matching support system that changes the ratio so that the ratio of the second provider evaluation value in the reliability becomes relatively higher the more frequently the client uses the service . A matching support system that supports matching between a requester who desires a service and a provider who provides the service,
a reliability calculation processing unit that calculates the reliability of the provider in the client by multiplying a first provider evaluation value of the provider, which is evaluated based on a service implementation record of the provider when the provider has implemented the service, and a second provider evaluation value of the provider, which is evaluated based on a relationship between the client and the provider, by a predetermined ratio, and adding the obtained values to the first provider evaluation value and the second provider evaluation value,
The reliability calculation processing unit:
A matching support system that changes the ratio so that the ratio of the second provider evaluation value in the reliability becomes relatively lower the longer the period of non-use since the client's last use of the service. The matching support system according to claim 1 or 2, wherein the first provider evaluation value is an evaluation value evaluated based on evaluation items related to the community to which the provider belongs in addition to the service implementation record. a candidate selection processing unit that selects candidate providers that meet the request from the requester,
The matching support system according to claim 1 , wherein the reliability calculation processing unit calculates reliability of the provider candidate selected by the candidate selection processing unit. The matching support system according to claim 4 , further comprising a transmission processing unit that transmits the provider candidates with high reliability calculated by the reliability calculation processing unit to a terminal device used by the requester. The service is
6. The matching support system according to claim 1, wherein the matching support system is a local service provided as a mutual aid activity by the provider residing in a specified area to the requester residing in the same area. A matching support device that supports matching between a requester who requests the provision of a service and a provider who provides the service,
a reliability calculation processing unit that calculates the reliability of the provider in the client's opinion by multiplying a first provider evaluation value of the provider, the first provider evaluation value being evaluated based on a service implementation record of the provider when the provider has implemented the service , and a second provider evaluation value of the provider , the second provider evaluation value being evaluated based on a relationship between the client and the provider, by a predetermined ratio, and adding the resulting value to the first provider evaluation value ,
The reliability calculation processing unit:
A matching support device that changes the ratio so that the ratio of the second provider evaluation value in the reliability becomes relatively higher as the number of times the client uses the service increases. A matching support device that supports matching between a requester who requests the provision of a service and a provider who provides the service,
a reliability calculation processing unit that calculates the reliability of the provider in the client's opinion by multiplying a first provider evaluation value of the provider, which is evaluated based on a service implementation record of the provider when the provider has implemented the service, and a second provider evaluation value of the provider, which is evaluated based on a relationship between the client and the provider, by a predetermined ratio, and adding the obtained values to the first provider evaluation value and the second provider evaluation value,
The reliability calculation processing unit:
A matching support device that changes the ratio so that the ratio of the second provider evaluation value in the reliability becomes relatively lower the longer the period of non-use since the client's last use of the service. a reliability calculation step of calculating a reliability of the provider in the client's opinion by multiplying a first provider evaluation value of the provider, the first provider evaluation value being evaluated based on a service implementation record of the service provided by the provider , and a second provider evaluation value of the provider , the second provider evaluation value being evaluated based on a relationship between the client requesting the provision of the service and the provider, by a predetermined ratio, and adding the obtained value to the first provider evaluation value ,
The reliability calculation step includes:
changing the ratio so that the ratio of the second provider evaluation value in the reliability becomes relatively higher as the number of times the client uses the service increases;
The reliability calculation method , wherein the reliability calculation step is executed by one or more processors. a reliability calculation step of calculating a reliability of the provider in the client's opinion by multiplying a first provider evaluation value of the provider, the first provider evaluation value being evaluated based on a service implementation record of the service provided by the provider, and a second provider evaluation value of the provider, the second provider evaluation value being evaluated based on a relationship between the client requesting the provision of the service and the provider, by a predetermined ratio, and adding the obtained value to the first provider evaluation value,
The reliability calculation step includes:
changing the ratio so that the ratio of the second provider evaluation value in the reliability becomes relatively lower as the non-use period since the last time the service was used by the client becomes longer;
The reliability calculation method, wherein the reliability calculation step is executed by one or more processors. 11. A reliability calculation program for causing one or a plurality of processors to execute the reliability calculation step of the reliability calculation method according to claim 9 or 10 .

Images